W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri2011@danbri.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:05:30 +0000
Cc: "Dan Brickley , Ivan Herman , Sandro Hawke , Steve Harris , RDF Working Group WG" <danbri@danbri.org>
Message-Id: <047EF24D-F31E-405B-9BA2-AB74F0D2C342@danbri.org>
To: Ian Davis <id@talis.com>




On 15 Oct 2011, at 12:30, Ian Davis <id@talis.com> wrote:

> On 15 Oct 2011, at 11:12, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 15 October 2011 11:01, Ian Davis <id@talis.com> wrote:
>>> FWIW I find the term archaic slightly derogatory.
>> 
>> I've used it in FOAF since it doesn't offend me as editor of FOAF
>> spec; and as for instance data publishers, I think it has about the
>> right level of unsettlingness about it. But I'm curious if it is also
>> derogatory to publishers of data that use the old-fashioned terms.
>> That wouldn't be so nice...
> 
> 
> I thinknits different in a formal standard. Companies don't like it
> when their competitors characterise them as relying on archaic
> technology.
> 


Yes, I never initially anticipated it being used for core technology constructs - and definitely not non-vocab pieces like parser bahaviour. Seq is very infrastructural but also 'just vocab', so is a bit awkward. Personally I would btw argue that rdf:Statement is rather archaic, but I accept the above argument as a good reason for W3C not to proclaim this.

Dan

> 
> 
>> 
>> Dan
> 
> Ian



Received on Sunday, 16 October 2011 15:38:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT